Commercial Insanity

I am a consumer whore, just like the rest of you. If I see something that I want, I usually buy it - especially if it's on sale. I have rather good brand recognition when it comes to food and certain household products, and admit to a degree of brand loyalty when it comes to some items (unless the sale price warrants the betrayal). So naturally, I must watch commercials.

Lately, there have been a stream of nonsensical commercials that I think need to be brought to attention and called out for the craziness that they represent.

No, I'm not talking about hyperbole (like like the MGD 64 commercials where the guy drinking a beer containing 30 extra calories per serving is on an exercise bike while drinking in order to combat those extra calories) or even logical fallacy (like that drinking a particular brand of beer will make hot chicks fall in love with and/or sex you). For all intents and purposes, most beer commercials do things right.

Hillshire Farms, in this particular commercial, does it wrong.



First of all, we have the main male characters, who I'll refer to as "SweaterVest" and "DenimVest".


"Did your mom pack you a fancy square plate to eat your lunch? My mom just slipped a corndog inside a pocket on my denim vest."

Now SweaterVest clearly has a Hillshire Farms sandwich for lunch. And somehow, he also has a fanciful square plate with which he will be eating said sandwich. No, that's not a napkin. It's a small plate, just the perfect size for a sandwich to rest on. DenimVest then issues the following challenge:

DenimVest: "Jump rope you for that sandwich."
SweaterVest: "Fine!"

And that's where logic really jumps out the window. The "challenge" is just the term "jump rope". Are you supposed to be figuring out who is best as jump roping? Can jump rope the fastest? Are you whipping each other with a jump rope until someone gives up??

Also, the prize for winning this challenge is... the sandwich? SweaterVest, you idiot! You already had a sandwich! If you win, is DenimVest giving YOU a Hillshire Farms sandwich? You've just contractually obligated yourself to participate in an extremely vague competition wherein the only possible positive result for you is keeping your own sandwich, which will clearly be left unguarded while you are performing the challenge!

And thus, the "competition" begins - apparently by hijacking two girls and their jump rope that they were clearly using prior to the DenimVest vs. SweaterVest Challenge was ever issued.

Without a referree or any judge mentioned of any kind, we're subjected to some shots of each challenger performing jump rope acrobatics. Yes, both SweaterVest and DenimVest apparently have mastered the delicate art of competitive jump roping. And then... wait a second... what the heck are you boys doing?


This competition has clearly been downgraded to "playdate" level.

Now you're not even competing! You're just playing jump rope together while a multi-ethnic group of fellow schoolmates watch on, flabbergasted! And the sandwich is clearly vulnerable! Won't somebody think of the sandwich???

Oh yes, the girls have thought of the sandwich. Their sly facial gestures to each other clearly indicate that they are in cahoots and have been planning this ruse for quite some time! Playing jump rope during lunch time, in hopes that some fools will simultaneously abandon their food and fall into their jump-rope-related trap! It's all falling into place, Bertha! I know, Mousey! Initiate Operation Double-Dutch-Delight!

And so, the mighty have fallen. With a series of whipping and jerking motions and twists, somehow the jumprope has MAGICALLY looped itself perfectly MULTIPLE times around the two pitiful boys. The pitiful boys who, despite being nimble enough to perform some complex jump-rope hand-holding "challenges", have managed to stand perfectly still and in the right place for the looping ensnarement that has occurred! Nothing short of witchcraft could have been used in this plan, based on its results. And to the witches go the spoils! The two girls raise their Hillshire Farms sandwich halves high in victory, while waving their winnings in those poor boys' faces.


"If we ever get out of these jump ropes alive, we will fucking BURN YOU AT THE STAKE."

And there's nothing that DenimVest and SweaterVest can do, but watch as these harlots taunt them and prepare to eat the trophy that was so viciously being fought over in a manly competition of jump roping.

Except for the fact that the witches didn't use very strong or good magic. Those ropes are loose as hell, and not even properly binding the two of them! DenimVest is clearly able to move his arm and hand! Their legs are unbound and, if working as well as a team as they were while double-dutching, the two of them could easily move as one unit and strike vicious blows upon the maidens who have violated the sanctity of the Schoolyard Challenge and perloined the trophy! But alas, their minds have apparently been turned to mush. They not only accept defeat that the girls have won (while clearly not having been really defeated at all) and succumb to the powers that be - which are now telling them to celebrate that which has been lost.


Despite being within striking distance of the sandwich-holder and having a hand free and capable of striking, DenimVest decides to let bygones be bygones and celebrate the fact that at least SweaterVest has still lost his sandwich as a result of this endeavor.

Go Meat, indeed. Go directly to hell for making such a ridiculous commercial.

What do you think? Am I crazy for expecting my commercials to make at least a modicum of sense?? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Families Flying with Small Children

We're in the middle of an era where airline travel is now a matter of dollars and cents and what they'll charge you for and what they won't. We're livid with the new ways they're trying to save money because their biggest methods involve charging us more, cutting off services and using practices that in most people's minds should be illegal. (That's right, I'm talking about "overbooking" and selling more tickets than there are seats on the plane as insurance against cancellations - which I'm sure makes sense to the airlines but it sounds like purely illegal activity in MY book.) Anyway, with all the rage regarding the possibility of being treated as nothing more than sacks of meat freight and paying tickets based on our weight - we seem to have overlooked an interesting trend that this blogger sees as a potentially good idea and a potentially bad one.

More airlines have stopped letting families with small children board before the general public, including Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines.

There are, of course, two schools of thought regarding this course of action.

1) This is a great idea, because it's more efficient and those not travelling with small children that get seated faster.

The numbers don't lie. It's primarily an efficiency thing. So before you accuse any of the airlines of being anti-parent, anti-children, anti-family or anti-caring-about-those-travelling-with-small-children, please bear in mind that test after test proves that it's an inefficient way to board a plane. Just ask Delta, the leading airline in service experiments:

"If you're bringing on people who need assistance — younger kids — all at once, you potentially create a bottleneck on the front end, as opposed to randomly dispersing them based on where people are sitting in the aircraft," explained Delta spokesman Anthony Black. "The best process is to board the aircraft normally."

And doing so, he said, saves an average of 10 to 12 minutes over allowing families to preboard.

You know, it's hard to argue with 10 to 12 solid minutes of difference between a plane being ready for takeoff and a plane still stuck on the tarmac with flight attendants telling you to stow things completely under the seat in front of you.

Meanwhile, the parents in the family units travelling with small children generally need extra time to deal with their extra baggage (both the luggage and the human varieties) and the fact that they have limited hands/arms with which to deal with it all. But does it make more sense to let them take that extra time BEFORE allowing the rest of the passengers to have THEIR time dealing with baggage and settling in? Or should they be stuck managing things when the rest of the passengers are - taking the same amount of extra time, but at the SAME time as other people?

Normally, I'd say good riddance to the families-board-first initiative - but I'm also aware of the lesser-talked-about second school of thought regarding this issue.

2) This is a horrible idea, because children could wind up ANYWHERE.

Speaking as a non-travelling-with-small-children passenger, there's one benefit I've found to having to wait those extra minutes while the breeders on my flight get to take their sweet time buckling in Junior. That benefit is that when it's time for ME to board, I have a visual of all potential child-endangered seating. If you don't want a brat kicking your chair or be in a onw-row vicinity of a screaming baby - the best strategy is to let them on first and then pick the spot that's clear of their threats. I work to identify all snot-nosed kiddies in those 30 seconds of travelling down the claustrophobic aisleway so I can pick a window seat as close to the front but as far as possible from the broodlings.

Without this system - if you let all general passengers start boarding in one group - my seat's perimeter could be invaded by Children of the Corn in a later boarding group! While no parent is really going to raise an eyebrow to someone passing up their row to find other available seating, getting up to get the hell out of there once they have arrived is probably going to be a confrontational issue. Especially if it's interrupting their several-minute procedure of getting settled in. Which means you're either stuck being a jerk or stuck with the little ones the entire flight.

Now please don't think of me as some ogre who's against children and thinks that they're all a bunch of snot-nosed poopy-pantsed screaming bundles of pure evil and annoyance. I've personally had very few flights that have been affected by young people - and those that were involved babies with colic who frankly disturbed the ENTIRE plane, no matter where you were located. But then again, I've made it a point to take these proactive measures to ensure that I DON'T have a lot of flights being affected by your little ones.

Don't take it from me, though. Try asking AirFareWatchDog.com and their poll about how the flying public feel about those travelling with their little children. There was a news story about it as well, citing that regarding the question of "Should airlines have a section of the plane reserved for parents with babies and younger children?" 58% of pollsters responded that "Yes, they should have done this long ago." 27% said "Yes, but they never will and it'll never work." and the remaining 15% went with "No. This is a bad idea."

85% of people think that child-carrying clans should sit in a separate section of the plane, even though a third of them think it'll never happen. I frankly don't think it'll work, either, but that's from a logistics standpoint. I'm not thinking about the business situation of their "overbooking" and whether it's okay to fill up cancelled Family Zone seats with standby Adult Zone passengers - I'm just thinking about the fact that most people want to stow children away somewhere they can't be HEARD. You can't soundproof a section of an airplane. It'll prevent the kicking and reduce the risk of germ infestation and being nagged or stared at by the unsupervised toddlers you'll occasionally encounter. But it won't reduce the overall noise they generate in a variety of ways.

So here's my idea.

If you're an airline lucky enough to still have TICKETED SEATING, meaning you purchase a ticket and it's got your seat row and number on it - then to hell with those and their small children, because there's no reason to have them waste those 10 to 12 minutes. You know where you're sitting, as does everyone, and you board by groups from the rear of the plane to the front as it's the most efficient method, and that's that.

If you're an airline like so many nowadays with GROUP SEATING, meaning you purchase a ticket and it's got your boarding group on it - then for the sake of those who don't want to be around your little ones, we have to let you on first so we know where NOT to sit. We hate the thought of losing another ten minutes to standing around with an A-Group boarding pass while we wait for the endless stream of priority seating passengers to settle in, but at least we have a chance to save ourselves from being bothered DURING them flight - provided we spent the time and effort to get an A-Group boarding pass and show up early enough to have a pick of seating in the child-free zones.

So that's my idea for how to solve the problem. Of course, my opinion really doesn't matter, since I'm an extra-large sack of meat freight who'll be flying as little as possible to avoid being charged per-pound just to visit family.

Do you have ideas about this issue (other than calling me names or treating me like an ogre)? Leave a comment and join the debate!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Fast-Food Moratorium in South L.A. (Part 1)

If you were to ask me to provide an honest answer regarding the question of our youth (and our populous in general) getting obese - I'd completely agree. The data doesn't lie, and neither do my eyeballs. People are getting fatter - and more people are getting fat. I would never, though, say it was an "epidemic", since that's supposed to be a word meaning a rapidly-spreading disease. Despite some crappy article I read once about how if you have several obese friends then you're more likely to become obese, weight problems are not a disease (social or otherwise). You can't "catch obesity" - not even from toilet seats.

But it's our right to be fat.

It's our freedom of choice to choose sedentary lifestyles or picking up a bucket of KFC instead of lifting weights or even ordering too much healthy food which in turn isn't healthy. You can't blame the gyms for being too expensive (though they are expensive indeed). You can't blame the video game industry for getting you addicted to sitting and button-mashing (thanks to DDR and WiiFit "games"). You can't blame the food places for letting you order too much (I mourn the loss of the "Supersize"). You can't blame the fast food industry for "being there" (unless you're a moron).

So the Los Angeles City Council must therefore be a bunch of morons.

They voted unanimously to approve a law banning new fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year.

Why in the name of all that is good and holy and deep-fried would they do such an idiotic thing?

Because 30% of the kids in South L.A. are obese, compared to the L.A. average of 25% of obesity in children.

That's it. A 5% difference - one extra kid out of twenty happens to be obese in South Los Angeles, so let's ban all new fast-food locations from opening. That sixth kid to tip the scales in every 20-child South L.A. classroom best get ready for an ass-kicking from the other five obese kids for crushing their dream of a new place to gorge on greasy delights! Oh, and by the way, THIS DOES NOTHING! At best, you're forcing people to waddle a little further to get their fix rather than letting a closer location get built. At worst, you're raping the sanctity of the free market. This little charade doesn't change the goddamned MARKET OPPORTUNITY!

Do you know why fast-food locations are doing well in that area and more want to open up? Because that's what the market demands. We just had a Dunkin Donuts / Baskin Robbins open in our building a month ago - even though one exists less than one block southeast from our building. And a few weeks ago, yet another one opened a block northeast of our building. Do you know WHY they're opening up three Dunkin Donuts locations within a block of each other?

BECAUSE THEY CAN. BECAUSE THEY STILL MAKE MONEY. BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT MORE LOCATIONS TO GET CHEAP DONUTS AND COFFEE.

I would never expect our city to decide "the downtown area is overcaffeinated and obese and caffeine is a drug and donuts are fattening, so let's ban new donut/coffee locations so that other businesses can move in." Okay, Chicago is the Nanny City, so I might expect it - but it's still a ridiculous idea. If the people wanted a new sit-down food location with healthy choices, then one of those businesses would move in and would prosper. FORCING one of those to open up INSTEAD of what the market wants will result in poor sales and the inevitable closing and moving out of that business. In my neighborhood, we mostly have greasy spoons and take-out Chinese and Mexican places. And some Italian-esque fancy/expensive bistro tried opening up. And nobody came. So they've closed. Twice. Maybe if another burger joint moved in there, business would be booming for them. It's called the FREE MARKET.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who has pushed for a moratorium for six years, said the initiative would give the city time to craft measures to lure sit-down restaurants serving healthier food to a part of the city that desperately wants more of them.

"I believe this is a victory for the people of South and southeast Los Angeles, for them to have greater food options," she said.

You moron! If that part of the city "desperately" wanted more sit-down healthy restaurants, then one would be opening in one of the available spaces. You can't just BAN certain types of businesses from renting that space just because you're "holding out" for one you like. If a business moves in and you don't like it and don't want it, you don't go. And if enough people do that, it goes out of business and closes and some other business can try it out. And if NOT enough people refuse to go - that means that people DO want that service/product and YOU'RE the idiot for thinking that YOUR opinion represents your entire area's opinion.

That's how it's supposed to work - and you shouldn't be allowed to pass an idiotic law to tell people what they supposedly want but obviously don't.

The law defines fast-food restaurants as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

My full rant on this law's language will be found in Part 2... In traditional George Carlin format...

Please Digg this article and join the debate regarding this bill!

Read more!

For the Future

I was reading some article about a guy who got arrested in California for "being creepy" and something about him hanging around a library and was arrested for talking to a kid because a mom freaked out.

I could go off on a diatribe about how it sucks being male because every mother out there apparently thinks you're out to molest their children no matter who you are or what you look like, but I won't. Okay, I'll say one thing:

Mothers, your children aren't all that amazing. Just like I'd say that not all children are cute and not all children are geniuses - not all children are spectacular enough to become targets for molesters. From what I've read in the newspapers and seen on news footage, most of these kids who get molested are rather decent-looking kids. Odds are that if the other kids in the class don't want to play with your precious child, neither would some molester.

Now that I've got that tidbit of hatred out of the way, I'll attempt to bring you with me on a bumpy train-of-thought that gets me to the REAL point of this post.

Everyone has to wonder for a second what this guy was talking about with this child. Some would think it's evil things, some would think it's harmless things. I try and think about the less-likely possibilities that could ironically twist the situation into the MOTHER being the bad person. (And not just for getting some guy arrested for "being creepy".)

The first thing that pops into my head that fills this situation is: What if this guy is the future version of the kid and he's trying to warn him about something??

In all of the infinite possibilities, you have to include this one. I mean, this information could be the difference between life and death for someone. But if you're the kid - how would you know that this guy really is you from the future? With the internet and the possibility of a real stalker, so much information is already at everyone's fingertips. You can't use trivial things from your life, because who would really remember a triviality at the age of 30 from when they were 8?

The only solution is a keyword or code phrase.

This is a brilliant thing for every person to have, at as early an age as possible. Decide on a keyword or code phrase and NEVER tell it to ANYONE. Don't write it down, don't pick something that anyone could ever string together, and keep it memorized. Then if you ever do meet the future version of yourself, you'll have that failsafe to be certain that it really is you.

I'm making mine right now. Although it sucks that now I can never go back in time to meet myself at an age before 24, since I wouldn't have known my secret phrase back then.

Of course, if I did go back to when I was younger than 24, wouldn't I have experienced it already? I don't ever recall meeting anyone who claimed to be me from the future. So I guess all my bases are covered then...

Have you made your own future-self keyword or code phrase? Is it a good idea? Or are you still too peeved about my tiny remark about how your child isn't worth molesting? Read more!

Santa and Obesity

We all know by now that the things that piss me off the most tend to be people making decisions based on stupid ideas without taking five seconds to continue thinking it through to the next logical step and realizing it's a stupid idea.

Today's mind explosion comes from some 80-year-old guy in a Santa suit who refuses to stuff his suit with a pillow. Because it's supposedly making our children obese.

He claims that children have been seeing Santa as a "chubby role model" and then they grow up thinking it's fine to be overweight. Seriously, he's making the "what would Santa do" argument that a lovely magical holiday spirit is turning kids into milk-and-cookie-loving fatties. When the kids and parents start asking questions about why Santa is so thin, this guy claims Santa's been on a diet and the parents agree that it's a good idea.

Hey, are you all too busy "thinking about the children" that you've forgotten to THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

What happens when they go to a different mall and see a different Santa, one who's apparently yo-yo-dieted his way back to his old college weight of "belly like a bowl full of jelly?" Doesn't changing the figure to conform with reality just detract from any possible magic left in the holiday? If you want to argue that Santa needs to go on a diet because of obesity and the risks of heart disease, what does that say about the fantasy itself? Santa can't get heart disease or clogged arteries or suffer from a myocardial infarction because he's FUCKING SANTA CLAUS! He's FUCKING MAGICAL, you idiotic jackaninnies! Does he need to wear a goddamned face mask while popping magically through chimneys because of the creosote buildup in the fireplace and he could get lung disease?

Here's what pisses me off the most: judging and altering Santa based on one tiny facet and ignoring the rest of it all because it's not the hot-button issue that has the country's knickers in a twist, so to speak.

Santa is overweight, so we must make him skinnier and say he's on a diet or else children will become obese since Santa is their role model? Fine, what about the fact that Santa only works one day a year? Do we need to make up a day job for Santa so children don't grow up to be slackers and bums? Should we have a police force out patrolling the streets to let kids know that breaking and entering is a crime, even if it's to give presents to good girls and boys? What about the misdemeanor of peeping since he sees you when you're sleeping? How about a gestapo of lawyers monitoring Santa to file suits if his naughty/nice decisions are determined to be racial profiling? Why isn't someone tackling the issue of elf slave labor or cruelty to reindeers having to pull a sleigh? Any global warming bitchfests about having to live at the North Pole even though the icecap his home and workshop are on must be melting away to nothing?

Anyone trying to ruin the magic of Santa Claus by making him follow reality instead of the spirit of Christmas is a Grinch who needs to be shot in the face. Put in your pillow and crank up the jolly, you old bastard. Kids have enough reality being jammed in their faces and enough bitching about diet and exercise from all angles throughout childhood. It's Christmas. Give them a fucking break and go have some eggnog.

Yes, I'm Jewish. But I'm also nondenominational and open-minded enough to know that you don't go fucking with Santa Claus.

(Don't be this guy.) Read more!

Science Project Battle Royale

Sometimes it takes a lot to get me focused on one thing and one thing alone - focused enough to come up with enough material to write about it, anyway. Sometimes what's even harder is keeping that train of thought either moving forward until I can type it out, or at least pulled into a specific station where I know it will be waiting for me to board once again after rushing about elsewhere.

My mind is often like a little dog, rushing about and distracted by shiny objects, never quite sure how it got to where it currently is, but no matter because there will always be more shiny objects and - look, shiny!

The analogy is more apt when put in the context of how much time my brain apparently devotes to thinking about things that (in the context of the analogy) are like a dog wading nose-deep in crotches.

That out of the way, I can hop a trip back to my particular train of thought and share my thoughts, for those of you anxiously awaiting something about science projects, battle royales, and not mind/dog/crotch analogies:

I was sitting on the train (I can usually procure a seat after the Roosevelt stop) and became aware of the three boys across from me who were talking about South Park. I wasn't paying attention to their conversation, mostly because I had my iPod on, but I couldn't help but gawk at the blast-from-the-past on the seat next to them. It was one of those cardboard science project things. You know, those obnoxiously-large cardboard stand-up deals that folds out to allow papers and "data" to be strewn about it as it borders some display and stands on a table in a gymnasium and is subject to the ridicule of every passing human being - whether you like it or not. Rage built inside of me, a nostalgic rage (if such a thing can exist) brought about by year after year of mindless science fairs.

That's when a thought entered my head: "Who MAKES these things, anyway?" Not the projects, because the answer is an obvious "fifth-graders" or something, but the actual cardboard things. I expect there are factories churning out these bastards, day in, day out. Working with shipping logistics as an analyst, I wondered for a brief moment if they experience seasonality, like a "science fair season" when revenue skyrockets as so many childhoods fall into the abyss of science fair depression. The moment was fleeting, and I was back to thinking about the factories.

There really can't be that many of them, right? Let's say that with the various companies that make them (since there are multiple varieties, as any fifth-grader could tell you) - there's maybe 50 that deal specifically with these sizes and styles of boards. That's one per state in America.

So here's my question:

Who would win in a fight to the death: all of the factory workers in each factory or all of the fifth-graders in that state?

I chose fifth-graders for this scenario because I think it makes it a fair fight. While practically every child from 2nd grade through high school is probably subjected to science fairs, I think that fifth grade is when you're old enough to be expected to know enough about the scientific method to make an actual experiment - but still young enough to be forced to do one and yammered at about not having your parents do it for you. Plus, fifth grade seems like the nice balance between being old enough to fight to the death, but young enough to not know how to play dirty. Which gives the factory workers the advantage. They're probably outnumbered at a 100-to-1 ratio, which raises the question of whether or not each worker could take out 100 children each.

The maelstrom would be fantastic.

My money is riding on the children. They would be hungrier for it, to be honest. With no boards, there could be no science fairs. The workers must perish. Or, I suppose, stop working at the factories. If they all quit, the boards couldn't be made, and it's likeliest that a worker who hears that a mob of bloodthirsty children will kill all the workers would just quit and find a new job that won't result in death-by-anklebiting. Though if the workers all banded together and created traps and schematics and fought dirty - they would certainly stand a chance. There's something to be said for power in numbers, but even numbers would probably succumb to a well-executed rapid-fire nailgun situation.

It wouldn't take long for the children to locate tools and for the smart/crafty ones to operate them and increase their killing potential. Which is why my money still rides on the army of fifth-graders.

I suppose that in the end, mass murder of adult workers would probably be more devastating to the average childhood than any science project. You could call it a moot point. I prefer to think of it as an experiment with no control and no repeatable results. A science experiment, if you will.

Now if only I had some kind of cardboard device with which I could display my findings...

Party-stopper question: Who would win in a fight to the death - All of the cardboard project-stand factory workers or all of the science-project-hating fifth-graders? Read more!

Trunk-or-Treat?

Taking "trick-or-treating" to the next level (or rather just a different level), a new phenomenon has been on the rise, called "trunk-or-treating". You may have heard something about it in the human interest section of the news, or maybe have even participated in it. The question mostly being asked is, "What do you think about trunk-or-treating?" Frankly, I'm torn.

It's a good idea, in theory, but like all things that are good in theory, I'm not willing to trust it further than I can throw it. And since it's virtually impossible to throw an abstract concept, I obviously don't trust it very much.

In "trick-or-treating", children go from door to door in their neighborhood, knocking on the doors and positing the choice of dishing out treats or possibly getting tricked. The homeowner, usually preferring not to be tricked later in the night, doles out candy bars that are admittedly NOT a "fun size" - and the process continues down the street. In fact, it usually continues until someone passes out (from sleep deprivation or diabetic shock) or the haul is too large to physically move and the children must be picked up - preferably with some kind of crane or forklift.

In "trunk-or-treating", the rules change. Instead of lying in wait at the door of their homes, the candy offerings are poured into the trunk of the car and all of the cars meet in one spot for the neighborhood. Then children come to this parking lot candy buffet and visit all of the trunks. That's it.

Again, I am completely torn on this issue. The side of me that loves the idea is the child inside of me, who is currently cackling at the prospect of a "parking lot candy buffet". The side of me that is most against it is the adult inside of me, who is among the population deemed "too old" to be wandering about town in a disguise in attempts to not have to pay for candy, but rather has to pay for candy that will be doled out to your snot-nosed offspring. For him, the notion of making it EASIER for children to find my candy and eat it is one that I am not on board with at all.

Cue the "in my day" speech, possibly involving walking five miles uphill (both ways) just for one of those horrible white baggies of doorstop-kin marshmallows that tasted as bad as every other sense warned you about them.

Now that the demons in me have subsided, I will admit that it's not TOTALLY a horrible idea. I can see that for rural towns, where visiting four houses might actually entail walking five miles, a chance for everyone to get together in one place and have a celebration for the holiday and have the chance to have your kids actually get some candy - that sounds like an acceptable idea. But again, good in theory rarely means it's good in practice.

My concern is that most times you hear about these trunk-or-treat parties/events, they're taking place at CHURCHES. Not only that, but in the same sentence you'll often hear SOMETHING religious or with a religious theme, or even just the words "Veggie Tales". My concern is that the church is trying to steal away this holiday! To the religious, anything that promotes the slightest bit of happiness in relation to anything non-Jesus (be it a witch, zombie, or Thomas the Tank Engine) is something that must be stopped or captured and then brainwashed into oblivion. Mixing churches with Hallowe'en is like trying to have your bachelor's party at your grandmother's house - with her in it.

My other concern is the creepy tone set by the words themselves. With "trick-or-treat", you know what the two options are. "Give me a treat, or I will commit some kind of trick on you." With this new "trunk-or-treat" concept, what's at stake? Are they going to lock children in a trunk when they run out of candy? Just from a language standpoint, it's confusing and admittedly creepy-sounding.

Also, what are childless male adults supposed to do? We already get enough guff from society as a whole if we even take the slightest interest in anything related to children. Something tells me that if parents knew beforehand which houses on a block were inhabited by single male adults without children, they would specifically wanr their children to avoid those houses. Nevermind the fact that the intentions of my ilk are just to hand out candy to children - we're already seen as "predators" and "sociopaths" and "red flags" to parents. Something tells me that an adult male with no children, like myself, would get the crap beat out of him for showing up in a parking lot with a trunkload of candy - even if everything took place in plain sight of the parents.

What it all boils down to is that I'm really not all that into the trunk-or-treating concept. I think it's dangerous to the holiday itself, in spirit and in tradition. Would I recommend it to rural areas? Sure. Nothing makes the night easier for parents and children alike than meeting up, getting it all over with and doing minimal walking. Would I recommend it to children? Sure. Nothing beats a 500-foot walk in a parking lot to secure a huge sugar haul instead of the 5-mile-uphill-in-the-snow-both-ways walks of my day. Would I recommend it to true fans of Hallowe'en, who know the history of the day itself (including why I always spell it with an apostrophe) and live to decorate and spook and share the true experiences of this delightfully-devilish nighttime adventure? Not a chance.

And in return for an offering of Boo Berry, I'd gladly share some of my tales...

(The trunk-or-treating "ritual")







Read more!

Children's Museum and Racism?

That's what Mayor Daley keeps implying (no, wait, he's blatantly shouting it) - that opposition to moving the Children's Museum from its current smaller location at Navy Pier to a larger space in Grant Park constitutes as racism. That opposing the placement of a new and expanded Children's Museum in Grant Park automatically means that you fear a horde of minority children and poor people cluttering up the rich white folks' neighborhood.

Well, Daley - such is not the case, and it makes YOU the racist. Or at least a sellout.

The real brainchild behind this is Jean Pritzker, the billionaire president of the board of the Children's Museum. What it all assuredly comes down to is that the expanded museum allows for more customers coming in at $8 a head, and the location allows for lots of public-transportation-fed customers as well as ample parking for those who are more likely to waste $8 a person to enter a Children's Museum.

You all know that I'm a capitalist and a realist (which I think equates to a cynic), but I'm definitely siding with Alderman Reilly on this one, because my sense of tradition and opposition to hypocrisy outweigh the acceptance of another rich person just wanting to get richer. The main argument being made on his side of the campaign to keep the museum out is certainly NOT one of racism - it's legal precedence. Grant Park has had a 171-year history of being legally protected from these kinds of construction projects. That protection was made in 1836, and has been reaffirmed four times by the Illinois Supreme Court: that Grant Park be formally protected as "Public Ground -- A Common to Remain Forever Open, Clear and Free of any Buildings, or other Obstruction Whatever."

It's as simple as that. End of argument. Case closed. No museum, kthxbye.

Daley, do you think that this museum, funded and led by your billionaire friend, is the best opportunity that Grant Park has seen? There have been dozens of projects proposed for that parcel of land - and all of them have been turned down. If they hadn't been turned down, there would be no Grant Park left other than the name itself, and that doesn't sound like a place that is "forever open, clear and free of any buildings" at all - does it?

Reilly isn't alone in this fight, either. Some aldermen are joining the cause because Reilly is right about the legal precedence, and generous enough to offer suggestions of other places WITHOUT the legal protection that Grant Park has where the new museum could be built. Some are joining purely because Daley is throwing his weight around and vetoing the decision. This ruffles the feathers of some of the other City Council members, since city projects in THEIR wards have almost always been at THEIR discretion (though it's usually an emphatic "yes") and having that decision power vetoed by the Mayor is causing a disturbance among the aldermen. Some are probably just joining in anger of Daley throwing around his racism accusations when there obviously is none.

Here's a sample of what Daley has been saying:

"You mean you don't want children from the city in Grant Park? Why? Are they black? Are they white? Are they Hispanic? Are they poor? You don't want children? We have children in Grant Park all the time. This is a park for the entire city. What do you mean no one wants children down there? Why not? Wouldn't you want children down there?"

If I may, now that most of the factual information has been presented, I'd like to address the mayor's questions in my usual rant-like and mildly-offensive manner:

Leave the race out of it, Daley, and maybe you'll learn something. No, we don't all want children around. In fact, I'd probably be voting to keep kid-friendly buildings out of my neighborhood. Why? Because they're (in general) whiny, obnoxious brats who cause disturbances in peaceful places - never completely satisfied and always ready to verbalize that at any given point in time, appropriate or not. "Are they poor?" Of course they're poor, they're children! They don't have money to contribute to society! In fact, humans are the species with the WORST duration of time between birth and being able to contribute back to the community. It takes us, on average, nineteen years. If a lion cub took nineteen years to make satisfactory contributions back to the pack, it would surely have been eaten in the process. Children may be our future, but they certainly don't make it seem like it'll be a bright future. And they are certainly NOT our greatest resource. Our greatest resource is probably money. Not children.

And before you get all "my child is the bestest ever and the cutest too" on me, I'm sure it is. To YOU. If Heaven is in the eyes of your children, then I can say without a doubt that Hell is in the eyes of OTHER people's children. They're not all smart, they're not all cute, and they're definitely not all "precious" - all reasons why I wouldn't want an influx of them in my neighborhood, Daley!

So let's keep the Children's Museum where it is - over at Navy Pier with the other kid-friendly attractions, so I know exactly where to avoid running into your children. I'm sure you'd agree it's for the best, parents.

(Article saying it's racism)
(Article saying it's not racism)
(Someone who seems to really get the idea)







Read more!

"Dear Parent - Your Child is Fat!"

I was tempted to throw a Humor tag on this post, but then thought again as my laughter at the notion of the article in question quickly turned into fuming outrage by the time I'd finished reading. As if we don't scare the crud out of school children enough with pop quizzes, homework and - let's face it - constant news of school shootings and school-related gang violence, idiots in charge of the Hyannis Elementary School in Boston decided to step things up a notch.

Not only are they singling out overweight and "at-risk of obesity" students, they're including mom and dad in the judgemental concept by putting these warnings in letters sent home.


Hopefully some of you are saying, "No! Surely this is a horrible joke!" Hopefully there's some decency still out there among the populous who is shocked and appalled at poor-health ridicule in the form of letters to parents, wasting time of parents and teachers alike. This monstrocity needs to be stopped, people!

The school is claiming that it can hide behind a state law that requires that a school notify parents of children who are overweight or underweight, or who may be at risk of becoming so. I simply cannot believe that a note needs to be given to parents from a school nurse to REMIND them of their child's possible health problems.

"Dear Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent,
Your child is overweight and is at risk for juvenile diabetes and heart problems and other obesity-related problems later on in life unless changes are made to your child's nutrition, diet and exercise patterns.
Sincerely,
Hyannis Elementary School Nurse"

Dear School Nurse,
Being a parent who cares enough about my child to do things like SEE him/her with my EYES, I am well-aware of my child's weight problem. This problem is strictly one facing my child, and hereditarily, myself. I did not need a reminder of my child's weight problem, nor did my child deserve the embarrassment of having me read this letter or the ridicule of other children when confronted on whether or not his parent received such a letter. You may be at risk of legal action and other angry-parent-related problems in your life unless changes are made to your sense of deceny, nosiness and downright lack of respect for my child and the other children of this school.
Angrily,
Mr. and/or Mrs. Parent

And for those of you out there who think that I'm trying to sound like one of the overprotecting liberal boo-hooers I'm usually up-in-arms against - think twice. This isn't about protecting children in my mind - it's about stopping people from being idiot douchebags and wasting everyone's time and effort by stating the obvious and butting into the business of families where they are not and should not be welcome.

You think Vicki Elliott, whose 4-foot-tall, 66-pound daughter was sent home with a letter warning that she was "at risk of becoming overweight," needs a reminder that her daughter might be overweight or at risk of becoming overweight??

I'm willing to bet she's reminded of it enough when her daughter comes home crying because of the mean things kids say to her.

I'm not saying her daughter needs protection.
I'm not saying her mother is wrong or needs to be taught a lesson or given pointers.

I'm saying it's not the school's business, and it's insulting to point out the obvious and undermine parents, who can do a perfectly fine job of raising a snot-nosed brat on their own.

I'd prefer they focused on learning to f*cking count - it'll come in handy when they're forced to count calories later on in life, or at least to maybe count my change correctly while on shift at their McJob!

The original article Read more!